Science

Reality is so much more attractive than illusion. This is why science is so much more beautiful than religion.It just takes an open (and humble) mind's eye to see. Science places us within an interconnected cosmos where we are part and parcel of everything in existence.This is akin to the "oneness" of religion and mysticism. Except, it is demonstrably real. Behold: I'm a couple of chapters into Richard Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth." Which happens to be evolution. Great read. A spine-tingle on just about every page for those, like me, who get turned on by scientific…

A friend of mine is fond of saying, "No one's life is ever completely wasted. He can always serve as a horrible example for others."This adage came to mind as I watched a video of Bill O'Reilly showing his ignorance in an interview with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is an eminent scientist who has just published a well-reviewed book about evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth." O'Reilly is a right-wing talk show host who is fond of mangling facts.And, in this case, making up facts when they are lacking.The fundamentalist mindset is on display beautifully at the beginning of the interview.…

Recently Maggie sent me a scanned photo of her aura that was taken 10-15 years ago. She asked for a particular caption when I shared it on my blog: Maggie's Radiant Form. Glad to oblige. Maggie wanted me to point out: "There are two types, one like mine which shows the colours of your personal energies (everyone's is different) and the second Kirlian photos which is a lot of squiggles and lines. Only experts can read those with any accuracy. The first type you have to have the gift of sight or clairvoyance."I told her that I didn't know much…

I enjoy reading every comment posted on my blogs. Even those I strongly disagree with. Hey, especially those, in this sense: When what we value is attacked, our reaction tells us a lot about ourselves.Before I read the comment that Jayme posted yesterday, I knew that I loved science and the scientific method. But experiencing what I felt when I read his unfair attacks on science made me realize this more deeply.So, thank you, Jayme. I respect the passion with which you ripped into science and scientists. Now I'll exercise my right to respond with some of the same energy.Some…

Thanks to Pharyngula, I was able to start my day off with an inspiring RIchard Feynman paean to reality, science, doubt, uncertainty, and godlessness.Feynman was an amazing physicist. And this short video shows that he also was an amazing person.

OK, that's a big "if" in this blog post title. But let's assume for a non-churchless moment that God is real, and God created the physical universe.So here we are, in God's marvelous creation. Living, breathing, pondering what existence is all about.Part of that pondering is something called science. It studies the natural world -- including the portion we call "humanity." Science is the best means known to man (and woman) for sorting out what's true about the universe, and what isn't.Why, then, are so many believers in a personal God who created the universe so mistrustful of a discipline,…

Yeah, I admit it: I"ve been getting a bit testy lately, blog-wise. (Summer-wise, life is great, what with a new camera and scooter to play with in the Oregon sunshine.)If you read through some of the exchanges between Phil and me on my "Who cares if God exists?" post, you'll find a touch (well, maybe a slam) of irritation in my comments on Phil's comments.You see, what gripes my churchless non-soul as much as anything is when science-bashers resort to spurious, irrational, shape-shifting arguments that can briefly sound good on the surface, but quickly break apart into Huh? fragments of…

Darn, I was hoping that my occasional Twittering had some cosmic significance. But an article in New Scientist, "First Twitter experiment probes belief in the paranormal," describes a study that showed a lack of metaphysical ability among 7000 people who signed up for a scientific use of Twitter.The formal part of the study, which took place over four days, tested both whether the group as a whole was psychic and whether believers outperformed disbelievers. On each day I travelled to a randomly selected location and asked everyone to send tweets describing their thoughts and impressions about the location. In the…

Wow, this post title runs the risk of winning a blogosphere Yawn! award. But hang in there, reader -- this subject of subjectivity and objectivity actually is darn interesting.And as intimate to you and me as what we're doing at this very moment. Which, in my case, includes sipping coffee from a yellow cup and watching the letters I type on my laptop's keyboard appear on the screen. I'm experiencing those things, along with much more -- such as hearing my wife open a desk drawer and shuffle through some papers. Now, there seems to be a big difference between…

Quite a few mystical, meditational, and spiritual entities (organizations or individuals) claim to teach a science of the soul. See, for example, here, here, here, and here.My previous post about the scientific method stimulated some pondering: how would a science of the soul go about trying to discover what, if anything, lies beyond the physical human brain and material universe?I'm assuming that "soul" refers to something metaphysical. If not, then it doesn't make sense to speak of a science of the soul, because plain "science" would be sufficient -- plenty of researchers already are delving into how our minds work,…

It's amusing when anti-scientific true believers get on their fundamentalist soapboxes. I've had a good time reading the nonsensical comments on my spiritual pseudo-science post.I'll try to avoid sounding too condescending here, though I agree with biologist PZ Myers when he responded to a creationist with "I'll be condescending when condescension is deserved."First -- and probably most importantly -- everybody uses the scientific method in their everyday lives. Otherwise it would be impossible to live any sort of normal life. So those who criticize how science works are hypocrites, unless they also are criticizing themselves. Here's a simple depiction of…

Traditional religions embrace a lot of crazy unsubstantiated beliefs. But so do modern New Agey sorts of spirituality, which often take a speck of scientific truth and try to inflate it into a grand explanation of the cosmos.So in addition to fundamentalist dogma, we churchless types need to train our skeptical guns on targets such as the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Personally, I liked this movie a lot more than, say, a speech by the Pope. However, since I'm fairly familiar with quantum theory (in a non-mathematical sense, at least), having researched it in the course of…

Ooh, I just love it when someone says something so brilliantly, it makes me think, "I could have said that myself!" (if I was that brilliant)Case in point: a wonderful YouTube video about open-mindedness that I learned about via Pharyngula, where blogger PZ Myers titled his post "Something a few of our commenters ought to watch."My sentiments exactly. It amuses me when fundamentalists wander onto this blog and start preaching, "Your skepticism is the real fundamentalism!" That doesn't make any sense, except in their twisted, tortured, thought-disordered illogic. I try to respond with reasonable statements like "not believing isn't a…

Is a depression coming? Will Obama's stimulus and budget plans get the country back on track? Does God exist? Is heaven the after-death destination for believers, and hell for doubters?These sets of questions seem very different -- economics is worldly; religion is other-worldly. But after reading a recent Newsweek article, "Why Pundits Get Things Wrong," I suspect there is a commonality between those who offer up answers in both areas.Ongoing research by Philip Tetlock, a psychologist, looked at 82,361 predictions by 284 pundits. Searching for an explanation of why some people were better predictors than others, he found that:The best…

I'm a day late on celebrating Darwin's 200th birthday with a blog post. But yesterday I listened to disbelievers in the theory of evolution hold forth on the radio, so I was thinking of you, Charles.What Darwin did, brilliantly, is point us in a vitally important direction: reality. That's what science does so well, and religion so poorly.Now, I realize that "reality" is a dirty word to many people, not all of whom are fundamentalists, because it sounds so elitist, unspiritual, objectifying, divisive. One guy I heard on a talk show claimed that he wasn't religious; he just wanted students…

Most religious believers consider that they're on the road to transcending the crudity and illusion of material reality. So, churchless skeptic that I am, it was hugely enjoyable to read in the latest issue of New Scientist about increasing evidence that the brain creates God.More accurately, a belief in God.An alternative being put forward by Atran and others is that religion emerges as a natural by-product of the way the human mind works. That's not to say that the human brain has a "god module" in the same way that it has a language module that evolved specifically for acquiring…

"Into the Light" is the title of the introduction to Universe, which stimulated my "Greetings from the center of the galaxy" post.Reading about the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't see how anyone could doubt that science has a whole lot to teach us about opening ourselves to a broader understanding of reality.Despite being suffused with light, surprisingly little of the universe is visible to the naked eye. Unaided, we can detect only 6,000 of the universe's estimated 70 billion trillion stars from Earth -- and no more than a few thousand from any one location.Dust, distance, light pollution and a thick…